<quoted text>Wrong, there are many precedents for overturning laws based on ballot measures, you are in for some serious disappointments pretty soon.We are not just a democracy, rule of the mob, we are a nation of law, a representative democratic republic.

GO read Article III and get back to me.

Then go study and understand the difference between the Federal and State Judiciary.

And "precedent" doesn't make something Constitutional, it is simply repeating the error.

<quoted text>When Kim Kardashian married Kris Humphries for 72 days, was that a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior?When Anna Nicole Smith, who met 85 year old oil tycoon, J. Howard Marshall, at the strip club where she performed and then married him, was that a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior?When the minister, Glynn "Scotty" Wolfe, married and divorced 29 times, were those cross cultural constraints on evolutionary mating behavior?When Britney Spears married Jason Allen Alexander at The Little White Wedding Chapel in Las Vegas; only to have it annulled 55 hours later, was that a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior?Face it, you boob, heterosexual marriage has been in decline for centuries. It has nothing to do with gays.Perfectly normal, long-term gay couples wish to marry one another. It will have NO impact on marriage and families.You have a cob up your jacksie about gays--that's all. You think we're "broken"--that we are genetic mistakes. You think these things even though you have no proof to back up your claims.Get over it! Gays are normal, functioning, people. I would say that they're just like you, but that would be insulting to us.

If marriage is so f$cked up, why would you want to be a part of it? Kind of like buying a new car for MSRP with a blown engine if you ask me.

<quoted text>How many times have you made this stupid argument? Equal protection of the law. PLEASE explain how 5 people in a marriage are equal to two people...

Opponents of gay rights often warn that legalizing same-sex marriage would inexorably lead to legalizing polygamy. Maybe it would, and maybe it should. Denying gay couples the right to marry violates state constitutional guarantees of equality, as the California and Massachusetts high courts have rightly ruled.(The Supreme Court of California also held that the right to marry is fundamental.) Surely Mormons have the same rights to equal treatment under law—and of course, they have a substantial First Amendment claim to engage in multiple marriages according to the dictates of their faith.

<quoted text>GO read Article III and get back to me.Then go study and understand the difference between the Federal and State Judiciary.And "precedent" doesn't make something Constitutional, it is simply repeating the error.

<quoted text>How many times have you made this stupid argument? Equal protection of the law. PLEASE explain how 5 people in a marriage are equal to two people.

How many times are you ignoring the equal protection of the husband AND wife within the marital relationship?

And where is it written that changing one aspect of a law means ALL aspects are required to be changed?

Think about the simple requirements that are in place now XBox. The participants have to consent, be of age, not closely related by blood other than first cousins in some states, not currently married, and of the opposite sex in most states. If the opposite sex requirement is dropped, there's no need to prohibit same sex siblings from marrying. No chance of pregnancy there.

If the nature, conjugality (as in husband and wife) of the marital relationship is no longer a requirement, why should the number be a requirement? Why prohibit certain pairings? Why does it matter who marries who, or doesn't marry who?

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted." US Constitution Article III

<quoted text>ARe you serious??? Hollywood is the basis of your counter? That's priceless.Do you understand your choice of example only validates the inability of gays to judge marriage and family? No marriage honoring or caring parent would equate with those examples.Amazingly stupid...Smirk.

OK... Let's look at "real America". In 2008, just over 40% of live births in this country were to single parent households. That's up from 18.4% in 1980.

<quoted text>If marriage is so f$cked up, why would you want to be a part of it? Kind of like buying a new car for MSRP with a blown engine if you ask me.

Because not all marriages are so fucked up (you can write the word out). Some do last.

Since you probably didn't read my post clearly, you likely missed the point I was making to Kimare. I was simply trying to point out that not all marriages are a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Many people enter into marriage for reasons other than to raise families.

If marriage was solely about the creation of families, then laws would be in place that mandated fertility testing prior to marriage. There would also be laws in place that would automatically dissolve a marriage if it did not produce an offspring.

<quoted text>Because not all marriages are so fucked up (you can write the word out). Some do last.Since you probably didn't read my post clearly, you likely missed the point I was making to Kimare. I was simply trying to point out that not all marriages are a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.Many people enter into marriage for reasons other than to raise families.If marriage was solely about the creation of families, then laws would be in place that mandated fertility testing prior to marriage. There would also be laws in place that would automatically dissolve a marriage if it did not produce an offspring.Wouldn't you agree?

The reason the government is in the marriage business at all is that marriage is good for society. It is a stabilizing influence and a family is the building block of society. Children play very heavily into this but it is true that they are not the only reason the government encourages marriage. Families without children and or having no intent or ability to have children are still beneficial to society.

I believe same sex, opposite sex, poly marriage and yes, incest marriage all deserve EQUAL consideration and respect, for they all contribute to a stable prosperous society.

And I believe SSM supporters who don't support polygamy and incest marriage are hypocrites.

<quoted text>Because not all marriages are so fucked up (you can write the word out). Some do last.

You seem to be centering your argument on the basis that they don't, and that is why same-sex marriage is a non-issue. Are you no longer interested in that line of reasoning?

veryvermilion wrote:

<quoted text>Since you probably didn't read my post clearly, you likely missed the point I was making to Kimare.

You hardly ever have a point, you simply post talking points over and over again. Most times they don't even relate to the post you are replying to.

veryvermilion wrote:

<quoted text> I was simply trying to point out that not all marriages are a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Marriage is a social construct created by homo-sapiens.

veryvermilion wrote:

<quoted text>Many people enter into marriage for reasons other than to raise families.If marriage was solely about the creation of families, then laws would be in place that mandated fertility testing prior to marriage. There would also be laws in place that would automatically dissolve a marriage if it did not produce an offspring.Wouldn't you agree?

It doesn't matter if I agree or not. The historical basis for marriage, as the government regulates it in this country, was to protect and ensure stability for the children that could potentially be created from such a union. This is the entire reason the court has accepted that there is a State interest in marriage. If this is no longer the case, than what interest does the State have?

The State interest has always been in regards to "potential." You would know this if you would actually educate yourself rather than running around thinking any of your opinions have any basis if fact.

What is completely illogical, is a group of people not only inviting, but demanding the government regulate them.

Marriage is a biblically defined relationship which only identifies one man and one woman as the legitimate participants. Once this definition is cast aside by society, ultimatly there will be no bounds to what constitutes an eligible party to a marriage! Man and Man, Man and Woman, Man and Bird, Dog and Cat, Man and Dog, etc.

There are more, but why bother. But one must enjoy the irony. Here we have a group of people screaming that they must be granted the acknowledgement of the government to unite them as one in marriage- because it is a RIGHT and to prevent such would be an infringement on their FREEDOM.

Note the term's- RIGHT and FREEDOM.

Now, since they were granted that "right" and "freedom" they must now fight the GOVERNMENT for their "RIGHT" and "FREEDOM" to dissolve that "MARRIAGE".

The irony being, they are neither "FREE" nor are they exercising a "RIGHT." They are exercising a government granted PRIVILEGE!

Without that silly little piece of paper, they would have been FREE and within their RIGHT to unite or dissolve said union or marriage at WILL!

That my friends is freedom, at least as our founders would have defined it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.